Update: The bill passed the House by a 93-0 vote. The measure comes up in the Senate on Monday. It has been placed on the consent calendar, meaning no opposition is expected.

While the Tennessee Senate is debating a bill that deals with evolution, the state’s House of Representatives is scheduled to take up a measure Monday night that would allow displays of the Ten Commandments in public buildings.

House Bill 2658 would allow the display of the Ten Commandments — along with other “replicas of certain historically-significant documents,” such as the Magna Carta and Declaration of Independence in any city or county public building or grounds in Tennessee.

Why the Magna Carta and Declaration of Independence? Because the courts have struck down displays of the Ten Commandments alone as violating the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, but the status of historical displays that include the Ten Commandments is a still unsettled.

]]>http://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2012/tennessee-bill-would-allow-ten-commandments-displays-in-public-buildings/feed/0Zach Wamp supports Supreme Court decision, toohttp://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2010/zach-wamp-supports-supreme-court-decision-too/
http://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2010/zach-wamp-supports-supreme-court-decision-too/#commentsTue, 29 Jun 2010 14:31:29 +0000Chas Siskhttp://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2010/zach-wamp-supports-supreme-court-decision-too/Too late for our deadline last night, U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, one of the three major Republican candidates for governor, put out a statement saying on Monday’s Supreme Court decision. It won’t surprise many who are tuned into the race that Wamp says he’s a fan of the ruling:

“I applaud the Supreme Court today for strongly upholding our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Some folks, like Mayor Bill Haslam of Knoxville and Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City, tried to limit or take away this constitutional right.

The Supreme Court made clear today that no government jurisdiction – federal, state or local – can significantly limit the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Tennesseans, and I am very pleased by the ruling.

Those who think like Mayor Haslam and Mayor Bloomberg should take note that this nation’s highest court has once again affirmed that the people’s right to bear arms is protected by the U.S. Constitution.”

“People vote in our elections not corporations, and we don’t know who own these corporations. Many of our large corporations have significant foreign investors that do not particularly care about U.S. jobs.Corporate executives can now influence the local voters with campaign ads that are not in the best interest of our employees in Rutherford County and the State of Tennessee.Voters should be informed of information that is being supplied to them that advances a corporation’s agenda and this is the purpose of this Bill.”

The bill would require corporations “to file a disclosure statement including the names and addresses of all corporate officers, directors and shareholders; names and addresses of lobbyists employed by the corporation; a detailed list of lobbying expenses; and the contracts the company has with state or local government.”

Corporations would also have to include a tag line at the end of advertisements stating that they paid for a political ad.

The Supreme Court ruling allows corporations to make their own political ads provided they don’t consult with a campaign.

Rep. Glen Casada has said he intends to ask the attorney general how the ruling will affect Tennessee.

]]>http://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2010/lawmakers-want-corporations-to-disclose-campaign-contributions/feed/1VU prof gives his two cents on campaign financehttp://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2009/vu-prof-gives-his-two-cents-on-campaign-finance/
http://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2009/vu-prof-gives-his-two-cents-on-campaign-finance/#commentsThu, 03 Sep 2009 15:22:17 +0000Chas Siskhttp://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2009/vu-prof-gives-his-two-cents-on-campaign-finance/We realize that not everyone begins each morning by sipping coffee at the breakfast table and reading to our always well-reasoned editorial page, so we thought we’d bring this piece to your attention, without comment or endorsement.

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case dealing with corporate free speech and a video, Hillary: The Movie, distributed online during the ’08 campaign. The case, which seems to be the only thing the national media talks about when it’s not talking about health care, opens up plenty of questions: the ability to restrict corporate speech, the differences between broadcast advertising and online distribution, and the First Amendment protections of free speech and free association.

The case has created odd bedfellows, with the American Civil Liberties Union and Pentagon Papers attorney Floyd Abrams, walking side by side with the National Rifle Association and Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, an opponent of the McCain-Feingold law that the case could roll back.

This morning Vanderbilt University political scientist John Geer, a periodic source for political analysis in The Tennessean, weighs in. To boil it down, his argument is that money = participation.

The candidate with the most money does not always win the election. In fact, the correlation between the amount of money spent on a campaign and winning is quite low.

Contributing money offers people and organizations a chance to participate in the political process. More participation is usually better than less.

]]>http://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2009/vu-prof-gives-his-two-cents-on-campaign-finance/feed/2Corker catches flack for bailing on Sotomayorhttp://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2009/corker-catches-flack-for-bailing-on-sotomayor/
http://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2009/corker-catches-flack-for-bailing-on-sotomayor/#commentsMon, 22 Jun 2009 18:51:56 +0000Chas Siskhttp://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2009/corker-catches-flack-for-bailing-on-sotomayor/The junior senator from Tennessee is getting grief for not waiting more than 10 minutes for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as she made her cast-encumbered rounds of the U.S. Capitol late last week.

Corker apparently felt no qualms about missing the engagement. He shared the anecdote all on his own with the Tennessee press corps in D.C.

But bloggers nonetheless made hay of the incident over the weekend, with some questioning whether Corker showed enough — ahem — empathy toward Sotomayor during her hobbled plight.

]]>http://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2009/corker-catches-flack-for-bailing-on-sotomayor/feed/1Harold Ford on Souter’s replacementhttp://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2009/harold-ford-on-souters-replacement/
http://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2009/harold-ford-on-souters-replacement/#commentsTue, 05 May 2009 14:06:00 +0000Chas Siskhttp://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/?p=3243The speculation has been that President Obama will replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter with an African-American or a woman.

Former Memphis Rep. Harold Ford seems to suggest he should do both. Invoking the holy names of Obama kids Sasha and Malia, Ford says that the president should choose someone who will serve as a role model in this short op-ed from over the weekend.

The chief justice was weighing in on the pending sunset in July of the appellate judge selection process in Tennessee. Many in the legal establishment like the system the way it is. It allows for a panel of legal experts to weigh in on appellate judge selections. Some want to do away with that system and require judges to stand for direct elections against other candidates, arguing that’s what the State Constitution intends.

Various proposals are floating around the legislature to force direct elections or adjust the current system or keep the status quo, which Holder seemed to be defending:

Justice Holder began her luncheon remarks with a tongue-in-cheek announcement. “I’m gong to talk about basketball,” she said, presenting a facetious proposal to elect officials taking part in NCAA championship tournaments, allowing them to raise money, use attack ads against election opponents, and “show bits and pieces of video of some of these games where there were bad calls.”

After asking rhetorically, “Don’t you think that’s a more democratic way to go about it?” she answered her own question this way: “It is ridiculous, isn’t it? You wouldn’t want your officials to be elected.” Then came her clincher: “Judges are like those officials. You relay on them to call the game fairly.”

She pointed out that the current system was due in sunset in July unless the current legislature reaffirms it and noted, too, the existence of legislative proposals for direct election as well as for modified versions of the current system.

UPDATE by Chas Sisk: In his weekly sitdown with the Capitol Hill press gaggle, Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey hit Holder on the appropriateness of speaking on an issue before the General Assembly.

“I don’t know exactly how far that goes and still be ethical, to be honest, for them to be out here speaking to Rotary Clubs and Kiwanis Clubs, lobbying for a bill. That seems against their code of ethics. Maybe it’s not, but it seems to me it almost crosses the line, that they’re saying we don’t need to get politics in this, yet what are they out there doing? Lobbying. Ironic.”

Ramsey also gave the gaggle his own view for how judges should be selected: The governor should have the power to appoint whoever he wants to the bench, without any meddling from lawyers or contested elections.

“In today’s world, to win a statewide election, you need millions of dollars. Do we need Supreme Court justices raising millions of dollars? No,” he said. “But what we’re doing is blatantly unconstitutional.”

Ramsey said he’s working with Sen. Dewayne Bunch and “two or three” House members to get his plan for a constitutional amendment heard next week.